[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c60341a3-2329-cd92-c76c-6f8249a57b43@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 18:59:39 -0800
From: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Cc: eric.snowberg@...cle.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com, matthewgarrett@...gle.com,
sashal@...nel.org, jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] IMA: Define workqueue for early boot "key"
measurements
On 12/12/2019 6:32 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't you need a test here, before setting ima_process_keys?
>>>
>>> if (ima_process_keys)
>>> return;
>>>
>>> Mimi
>>
>> That check is done before the comment - at the start of
>> ima_process_queued_keys().
>
> The first test prevents taking the mutex unnecessarily.
>
> Mimi
I am trying to understand your concern here. Could you please clarify?
=> If ima_process_keys is false
-> With the mutex held, should check ima_process_keys again
before setting?
Let's say 2 or more threads are racing in calling ima_process_queued_keys():
The 1st one will set ima_process_keys and process queued keys.
The 2nd and subsequent ones - even if they have gone past the initial
check, will find an empty list of keys (the list "ima_keys") when they
take the mutex. So they'll not process any keys.
thanks,
-lakshmi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists